An ancient priest of the Mosaic order could only be selected from the tribe of Levi. It was obligatory without exception that he should be of the family descending from Aaron and do service to God in outward worship with the sacrifices and blood of irrational animals. But he that is named Melchizedek, which in Greek is translated king of righteousness, who was king of Salem, which would mean king of peace, without father, without mother, without line of descent, not having, according to the account, beginning of years or end of life, had no characteristics shared by the Aaronic priesthood. For he was not chosen by humans, he was not anointed with prepared oil, he was not of the tribe of those who had not yet been born; and, strangest of all, he was not even circumcised in his flesh, and yet he blesses Abraham, as if he were far better than he. He did not act as priest to the Most High God with sacrifices and libations, nor did he minister at the temple in Jerusalem. How could he? It did not yet exist. And he was such, of course, because there was going to be no similarity between our Savior Christ and Aaron, for he was neither to be designated priest after a period when he was not priest, nor was he to become priest, but be it. For we should notice carefully in the words, You are a priest forever, he does not say, You shall be what you were not before, any more than, You were that before which you are not now—but by him who said, I am who I am,^[1] it is said, You are, and remain, a priest forever. . . .

And the fulfillment of the oracle is truly wondrous to one who recognizes how our Savior Jesus, the Christ of God, now performs through his ministers even today sacrifices after the manner of Melchizedek’s. For just as he, who was priest of the Gentiles, is not represented as offering outward sacrifices but as blessing Abraham only with wine and bread, so in exactly the same way our Lord and Savior himself first, and then all his priests among all nations, perform the spiritual sacrifice according to the customs of the church and with wine and bread darkly express the mysteries of his body and saving blood. This by the Holy Spirit Melchizedek foresaw and used the figures of what was to come, as the Scripture of Moses witnesses, when it says, And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abraham.^[2] And thus it followed that to him only was the addition of an oath, The Lord God has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’

The psalm too, continuing, even shows in veiled phrase the passion of [Christ], saying, He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head.^[3] And another psalm shows the brook to mean the time of temptations: Our soul has passed through the brook; yes, our soul has passed through the deep waters.^[4] He drinks, then, in the brook, that cup of which he darkly spoke at the time of his passion, when he said, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.^[5] And also, If this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.^[6]

It was, then, by drinking this cup that he lifted up his head, as the apostle says, for when he was obedient unto death, even death on a cross, therefore, he says, God has highly exalted him,^[7] raising him from the dead and setting him at his right hand, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name which is named, not only in this world but in that which is to come. And he has put all things in subjection under his feet, according to the promise made to him, which he expresses through the psalmist, saying, Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool. . . . Rule in the midst of your foes.^[8]

It is plain to all that today the power of our Savior and the word of his teaching rule over all them that have believed in him, in the midst of his enemies and foes.

On receiving this promise^[1] Abraham moved on and stayed in another place in the same land, Hebron, near the Oak of Mamre. . . . But he received at the same time a public blessing from Melchizedek, who was a priest of the Most High God.^[2] Many important things are written about Melchizedek in the epistle entitled To the Hebrews, which the majority attribute to the apostle Paul, though many deny the attribution. Here we certainly see the first manifestation of the sacrifice which is now offered to God by Christians in the whole world, in which is fulfilled what was said in prophecy, long after this event, to Christ who was yet to come in the flesh: you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.^[3] Not, it is observed, in the line of Aaron, for that line was to be abolished when the events prefigured by these shadows came to the light of day.

It is for a reason that we are reminded how Melchizedek met with Abraham after his victory over the Assyrians and gave him one-tenth of all the spoils. This indicates that Melchizedek, the priest, was a forefather of the tribe of the Levites. However, the priesthood without the law is greater than that under the law.

And Melchizedek was priest of those who were in uncircumcision, and he blessed Abraham who was in circumcision, who offered him tithes. Thus God has shown that his eternal priest, also called Lord by the Holy Spirit, would become priest of those in uncircumcision.

Just as our Redeemer, when he appeared in the flesh, deigned to become like a king to us by bestowing a heavenly kingdom, so too did he become a high priest by offering himself for us as a sacrifice to God with an odor of sweetness. Hence it is written, The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.’^[1] Melchizedek, as we read, was a priest of the Most High God long before the time of the priesthood of the law, and he offered bread and wine to the Lord. Our Redeemer is said to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek because he put aside the sacrificial victims stipulated by the law and instituted the same type of sacrifice to be offered in the new covenant in the mystery of his own body and blood.

We therefore confess, dearly beloved, not rashly but with faith, that the Lord Jesus Christ is present in the midst of believers. Although he sits at the right hand of God the Father until he makes of his enemies a footstool,^[1] the high priest has not left the assembly of his priests.

Fittingly does this chant rise up to him from the mouth of the whole church and from that of all priests, The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.’^[2] He himself is the true and eternal bishop whose ministry can neither change nor end. He is the one prefigured by the high priest Melchizedek.

Attached to oaths among human beings are certain conditions that have been made irrevocable by permanent guarantees. Surety for the divine oath can therefore be found in promises that have been fixed by immutable decrees. Since regret implies a change of will, God does not regret what, according to his eternal good pleasure, he cannot want to be otherwise than how he has wanted it.

Also in the priest Melchizedek we see prefigured the sacrament of the sacrifice of the Lord, according to what divine Scripture testifies and says, And Melchizedek, king of Salem, brought out bread and wine.^[1] Now he was a priest of the Most High God and blessed Abraham. And that Melchizedek bore a type of Christ, the Holy Spirit declares in the psalms, saying from the person of the Father to the Son, Before the morning star I begat you; you are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.^[2] That order is assuredly this, coming from that sacrifice and thence descending, that Melchizedek was a priest of the Most High God; that he offered wine and bread; that he blessed Abraham. For who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father and offered that very same thing which Melchi-zedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood? And with respect to Abraham, that blessing going before belonged to our people. For if Abraham believed in God and it was accounted unto him as righteousness, assuredly whosoever believes in God and lives in faith is found righteous and already is blessed in faithful Abraham and is set forth as justified. This the blessed apostle Paul proves, when he says, Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ So you see that it is people of faith who are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith.^[3] Thus in the Gospel we find that children of Abraham are raised from stones, that is, are gathered from the Gentiles.^[4] And when the Lord praised Zacchaeus, he answered and said, Today salvation has come to this house, because he too is a son of Abraham.^[5] In Genesis, therefore, that the benediction, in respect of Abraham by Melchizedek the priest, might be duly celebrated, the figure of Christ’s sacrifice precedes, namely, as ordained in bread and wine. The Lord, completing and fulfilling, offered bread and the cup mixed with wine, and so he who is the fullness of truth fulfilled the truth of the image prefigured.

These people honor Melchizedek, the one mentioned in the Scriptures, and regard him as some great power. They consider him to be [in the heavens] above, in places that cannot be named, and in their error they claim as truth not only that he is not just a power, but also that he is greater than Christ. Also, supposedly based on a literal reading of the saying You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, they believe that Christ merely came and was deemed worthy of the order [of Melchizedek]. Therefore, they say, Christ is inferior to Melchizedek. For if his status were not somehow secondary, he would not need the order of [Melchizedek].

As for Melchizedek himself, they say that he came into being without mother, without father, without genealogy, as they would like to show from St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. They also fabricate spurious books for their own use, and so deceive themselves.

Yet, their refutation comes from the very writings themselves. After all, at the same time David prophesies that the Lord will be established a priest after the order of Melchizedek,^[1] the sacred Scripture is also saying that Christ will be a priest. What we find is that [speaking of Melchizedek, St. Paul] adds immediately, resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever. If he resembles the Son of God, he is not equal to the Son of God. For how can the servant be equal to the master? You see, Melchizedek was a man, and the designation without father, without mother, is not said because he did not have a father or a mother, but because they were not explicitly named in the sacred Scripture. . . .

Remember that, even though some give an account of Melchizedek’s father and mother, there is no basis for this in the canonical and established Scriptures. . . . And of how many others is the genealogy not clearly given [in the Scriptures]? Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Elijah the Tishbite—neither their fathers nor their mothers are mentioned anywhere in the canonical Scriptures. . . .

What are we, then, to say? Will the examples of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego force our imagination to consider what we ought not and marvel with excessive owe, beyond all measure, at each of their cases, considering them to be without father and without mother? Let it not be so! After all, the traditions of the apostles and the holy Scriptures and the successions of teachers have been set as our boundaries and foundations for the building up of our faith; and the truth of God is has been protected from every side, so that no one would be deceived by empty myths.

But I return to the matter at hand, namely, the things these people imagine about Melchizedek. On the one hand, it is clear that he was a holy man, a priest of God, and the king of Salem, and on the other, that he was not of the heavenly order, nor did he descend from heaven; for, as the holy God, the Word, who does not lie, says: No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.^[1] As for the order of Melchizedek, when the divine Scripture proclaimed and the Spirit clearly taught about it, they revealed the transposition of the priesthood from the ancient synagogue and the nation onto the finest and best nation, which is not united by descent from the [same] flesh. You see, this holy man, Melchizedek, had neither descendants after him nor was his priesthood removed. For he remained a priest all the days of his life and even still he is praised in Scripture as a priest, since no one either succeeded him or abolished the priesthood during the time of his service. So also our Lord, though he was not a human being—but the holy divine Word of God, Son of God, begotten without beginning nor in time, being always with the Father, who for us became a human being, of Mary and not by the seed of man—offers the priesthood to the Father, having taken the clay from his humanity, so that, on our behalf, he may be established a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, which has no succession. And he remains [as such], forever offering gifts on our behalf, having first offered himself through the cross, so that he may abolish every sacrifice of the old covenant, offering the most perfect and living sacrifice on behalf of the whole world: he is the sacrificial victim, he is the offering, he is the priest, he is the altar, he is God, he is human, he is King, he is High Priest, he is sheep, he is lamb, having become all in all on our behalf, so that life may be ours in every way, and so that the unmovable foundation of his priesthood may be established forever, no longer allotting it according to the flesh and successions, but granting that it might be preserved by the Holy Spirit, according to his decree.

And then again, others come to imagine various things by what they say about this Melchizedek. You see, since they do not understand spiritually what is being said by the holy apostle in the same letter to the Hebrews, they are condemned to an [understanding that is] according to the flesh. The Egyptian heresiarch Hieracas considers this Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit because of the phrase Resembling the Son of God he remains a priest forever, as though this ought to be interpreted by the words of the apostle when he said, the Spirit intercedes for us through wordless sighs.^[1] Yet, the one who is able to understand the mind of the Spirit knows that he intercedes with God on behalf of the elect.^[2] In this way [Hieracas] has fallen completely off the prescribed path. For the Spirit never took on flesh, and, not having taken on flesh, he could not be king of Salem and priest of any place.

And how many things about this Melchi-zedek others also imagine! The Samaritans, for example, consider him to be Shem, the son of Noah; but they, too, will be found to be absurd. For the sacred Scripture, which safeguards everything with good order, has fortified the truth from all sides, and it has not set the order of the times and the years of the lives of each of the patriarchs and enumerated their successions in vain. After all, when Abraham was eighty-eight or, more or less, ninety years old, Melchizedek met him and offered him loaves of bread and wine,^[1] prefiguring the mysteries through the types; types, that is, of the Lord’s body—since the Lord himself says, I am the living bread—and types of his blood, which flowed from his side for the cleansing of those who have been defiled and the sprinkling and salvation of our souls. . . .

Shem, however, of whom we spoke before, and whom the Samaritans imagine to be Melchi-zedek, fathered Arpachshad^[2] in the one hundred second year of his life, and altogether there were 1,241 years until the time of Abraham, when he met Melchizedek on his return from the slaughter of the kings,^[3] Amraphel, Arioch, Chedorlaomer, and Tidal.

And Shem did not live as many years as their silly imagination thinks, but he was 102 years old when he fathered Arpachshad, in the second year after the flood. And after these events, he lived, as the sacred Scripture says, for five hundred years, and had other sons and daughters, and he died. Now then, since he lived for 602 years and then died, how is it possible for him to reach the span of 1,241 years, so that Shem, the son of Noah, who preceded Abraham by ten generations, may be called Melchizedek by them, after ten generations, after 1,241 years? O, the great deceit of men! And according to the evidence of other manuscripts, from the age of Shem—from the time in which Shem lived—until the time at which Abraham met Melchizedek, as was stated before, which was during [Abraham’s] eighty-eight or ninetieth year of life, 628 years passed, more or less. All of this evidence, therefore, means that it is impossible for Shem to have reached the period of Abraham, so as to be identified with Melchizedek. Thus, the nonsense of the Samaritans is destroyed in every way.

And then again, the Jews say that though he himself was a righteous man and good and a priest of the Most High, just as the sacred Scripture says, it is because he was the son of a prostitute that his mother is not recorded and his father is not known. But their silly assertion, too, has been deposed. After all, Rahab was a prostitute and she is recorded,^[1] so also Zimri, who committed fornication, is recorded, as well as Cozbi after him, even though she was a foreigner and she did not descent from the nation of Israel.^[2] . . . Everyone who does not enter by the door, as the holy Gospel said, is a thief and not a shepherd.^[3]

And even in the church there are some who consider this Melchizedek to be by nature different. That is, they consider him to be essentially the Son of God, who appeared to Abraham in the form of a man. They, too, fall away from the path; for no one ever became like [the Son of God] just as the sacred Scripture states, that resembling the Son of God he remains a priest for ever. Indeed, this man who does not belong to their genealogy collected tithes from Abraham; and since he is not counted to have descended from the Israelites themselves, he is counted as having descended from other people. . . .

And so the ideas of all the heresies are shown to be futile. See now, even these have denied their master who bought them with his own blood,^[1] who did not begin to exist since Mary, as they think, but who is the divine Word, always with the Father, begotten of the Father without a beginning and not in time, just as the whole Scripture attests. It was him, and not to Melchizedek, that the Father also said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.^[2] For even though he [Melchizedek] was a priest of God Most High in his own generation and had no successors who came after him, he did not come down from heaven. After all, the Scripture did not say that he brought down bread and wine, but that he brought them out^[3] to [Abraham] and those with him when he received the patriarch who was passing by, coming from [the battle with] the kings. And he blessed [Abraham] because of his righteousness and because of the faithfulness and the piety of the man. For, even though he was tested in all things, the patriarch did not fall away from righteousness in the slightest, but God was his helper even against those who truly fell upon the land of Sodom and carried away even his own nephew, the holy Lot, whom [Abraham] brought back with all the spoil and booty.^[4]

Where, then, can we not find that the Son was always with the Father? For it says, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,^[5] and not In the beginning was Melchizedek, or Melchizedek was God.

Again, it has been reported to us that some, who have been deceived more than anything that we have said before and have been inflamed by greater pride of intellect, have dared to turn to an unthinkable notion and have arrived to a blasphemous idea, saying that this Melchizedek is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. O, what careless minds people have, and what deceitful hearts, not having a place for truth! Since the apostle says that Melchizedek is without father and without mother and without genealogy, because of the exaggeration of the phrase these people misunderstand the notion and think that what is said corresponds to the Father of all, and thus describe for themselves a blasphemous error. Because the Father of all, God the almighty, has neither father nor mother nor beginning of days nor end of life—and this is confessed by all—they have fallen into the foolish blasphemy of comparing him to Melchizedek, because the apostle has spoken of him like this, not understanding the other things said about him. That is, concerning Melchizedek it is said that he was a priest of the Most High.^[1] Now, if [Melchizedek] is the Most High and Father, then, as the priest of another Most High, he cannot be himself the Father of all, for he serves another Most High as priest.

O, the confusion of people, who do not understand what is true but bend themselves towards error! To give the final solution to the whole affair, the holy apostle brought together everything and said: This man who does not have his descent from them (clearly meaning but from others), received tithes from Abraham, and again he said, who, in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and petitions, to him who was able to save him^[2]—it is obvious that the Father did not take on flesh.

And now that we have discussed sufficiently, let us leave this heresy, for we have stuck it with the firm faith that is supported, as if we had struck down a field-mouse with a stone, and have avoided its deadly poison. For they say that the field-mouse does not harm immediately the one it bites but, in time, it destroys the body and infects with leprosy every limb of the one who is injured. Likewise, even though this heresy may not sound as much to the minds of those who first hear it, as it dwells in their minds, it creates questions and, from there, leads to the destruction of those who have not happened on the remedy of this antidote, namely, the refutation and counterargument I have given against it.

The mouse is not seen readily. It walks about at night and so works its harm, especially in the land of the Egyptians. Those who know about the animal understand that I do not make mention it either incidentally or sycophantically, but from this they can compare the harm done by the heresy: for such is the damage it does.

Now, the comparison he had frequently gone to great trouble to develop he develops in the present case. Firstly, he recalls the story of Melchizedek. While he seems to conduct his treatment in narrative style, he is laying the groundwork for his thesis. The reason, you see, that he showed Abraham giving a blessing and offering a tenth of the spoils was to show the patriarchy yielding precedence even in type. Then he brings out his importance also from the names. This name, Melch-izedek, in the Hebrew and Syriac language means king of righteousness; he ruled over Salem, and the word Salem is translated as peace. His intention, therefore, is to present him in this way as a type of Christ the Lord: according to the apostle he is our peace, and according to the Old Testament author he is our righteousness.

Using the principles of pastoral science, he gathers us into his heavenly fold.^[1] He is called sheep,^[2] because he was sacrificed, a Lamb,^[3] because he was without blemish.^[4] He is the high priest because he presented the offering. Melchizedek, because on the transcendent level he had no mother, on the human level no father, and his high estate is without genealogy. Who, it says, can recount his generation?^[5] He is Melchizedek too, as king of Salem or peace, as king of righteousness, and because he tithes the patriarchs who prevailed over evil powers.

Now the interpretation of the name Melchizedek is king of justice and king of peace. The apostle indeed demonstrated that in this name the mystery of the grace and justice of the Son, Lord of Melchizedek, was inscribed.

For Salem is, by interpretation, peace; of which our Savior is enrolled King, as Moses says, Melchizedek king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who gave bread and wine, furnishing consecrated food for a type of the Eucharist. And Melchizedek is interpreted righteous king; and the name is a synonym for righteousness and peace.

Without father, without mother, without genealogy, according to the Scripture. Later, among the Levites it is always clear who were the parents of a priest. They also had allotted times and periods of service, and the total length of their service and of their life is known. All these data exist for each priest under the law, even if not for every year. However, it is said that Melchizedek is without father, without mother, without genealogy, having no beginning and no end of life according to the word of Scripture. He does not belong to a priestly family; we do not know when he started his priesthood or what kind of a priest he was, or whether he was a priest all his life. We do not know any information that is available for those priests under the law. It is said that, likened to the Son of God, he continues his priesthood forever. And how does Melchizedek remain a priest? Here is a solution to that question. As Moses sometimes signifies the law, so Melchizedek, a human being, signifies the priesthood. Now, if he is likened [to the Son of God] through the priesthood in Christ, he remains forever, not as a mortal man but as a pattern of the priesthood.

And what does Paul say? For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God. And, what is especially noteworthy, he shows the difference to be great by the type itself. For as I said, he continually confirms the truth from the type, from things past, on account of the weakness of the hearers. You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek, whereas Melchizedek was dead and was not priest forever, see how he explained it mystically. . . .

And who can say this concerning a man? He does not assert this, in fact, Paul says; the meaning is that we do not know when or what father he had, nor what mother, nor when he received his beginning, nor when he died. And what of this, one says? For does it follow, because we do not know it, that he did not die, or had no parents? You say well; he both died and had parents. How then was he without father or mother? How, having neither beginning of days nor end of life? How? From its not being expressed. And what of this? That as this man is, from his genealogy not being given, so is Christ from the very nature of the reality. . . .

Where is the likeness to the Son of God? That we know not of the one or of the other either the end or the beginning. Of the one because they are not written; of the other, because they do not exist. Here is the likeness. But if the likeness were to exist in all respects, there would no longer be type and reality; but both would be type. Here then, just as in representations by painting or drawing, there is something that is like and something that is unlike. By means of the lines, indeed, there is a likeness of features, but when the colors are put on, then the difference is plainly shown, both the likeness and the unlikeness.

Christ the Lord, of course, has each of these by nature and in reality: while as God he is without mother, being begotten only of the Father, as man he is without father, being born only of a mother—the Virgin, I mean. As God he is without genealogy: the one of the unbegotten Father does not require a family tree. Without beginning of days: the begetting was eternal. Without end of life: he has an immortal nature.

This was the reason he likened not Christ the Lord to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek to Christ the Lord: one was type of the other, and the other the realization of the type. In respect of the priesthood, of course, Melchizedek did not imitate Christ the Lord; rather, Christ the Lord is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek: being a priest belongs to a human being, whereas accepting offerings belongs to God. Yet by becoming incarnate the only begotten Son of God also became our high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not by aggregating to himself the position but by concealing the divine status and accepting the lowly condition for the sake of our salvation. This is why he was called lamb, sin, curse, way, door, and many other names like that.

Let no one claim Divinity resides in an order established by human beings when he encounters such an order. For the church does not consider even Melchizedek, by whose office Abraham offered sacrifice, an angel (as some Jewish interpreters do). It rather considers him a holy man and priest of God who, prefiguring our Lord, is described as without father or mother, without history of his descent, without beginning and without end. It does this in order to show beforehand the coming into this world of the eternal Son of God who was likewise incarnate and then brought forth without any father, begotten as God without mother, and was without history of descent. For it is written: Who shall declare his generation?^[1]

This Melchizedek, then, we have received as a priest of God based upon the model of Christ. However, the one we regard as the type, the other as the original. Now, a type is a shadow of the truth. We have accepted the royalty of the one [Melchizedek] in the name of a single city [Jerusalem], but that of the other [Jesus] as shown in the reconciliation of the whole world. For it is written: God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,^[2] that is to say, the eternal Godhead was in Christ. Or, if the Father is in the Son, even as the Son is in the Father, then their unity in both nature and operation is plainly not denied.

The heretic Theodotus . . . says that the human being Christ was conceived and born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, but that he was inferior to Melchizedek because it is said of Christ, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.^[1] For this Melchizedek, he says, by special grace is a heavenly power, and what Christ does for human beings, having been made their intercessor and advocate, Melchizedek does for the heavenly angels and powers. For to such a degree, he says, he is better than Christ that he is fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.

Some say that this Melchizedek was actually Shem, son of Noah; in fact, they say the book of Genesis clearly shows that he lived in the days of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Moreover, from the sortitions of those tribes who inherited the land of the house of Shem, it looks clear that he lived in Salem in his own inheritance.

Not only Melchizedek but also the name Melchizedek are without father, and mother and without genealogy because neither the name Melchizedek nor the name Israel were written in the genealogy, whereas Shem and Jacob had father and mother, and a beginning and an end, and were inscribed in the genealogy. But the names of Melchizedek and Israel did not have any of these things. God glorified them both with names equally imposed by him. He was made similar to the Son of God through his priesthood, so that the priesthood of Melchizedek might last forever, not in Melchizedek himself but in the Lord of Melchizedek.

And the apostle highly praises the priesthood of all nations rather than that of his people, when he says, Consider how great this man is to whom even our patriarch Abraham gave the tenth part of everything.

He commented also on the term without a genealogy. He said Melchizedek was not of their family tree. So it is clear that he was not really without a family tree but only to provide a type.

The Jews say that Melchizedek was Shem, Noah’s son, and, counting up the total years of his lifetime,^[1] they demonstrate that he would have lived up to the time of Isaac; and they say that all the firstborn sons of Noah were priests before Aaron performed the priestly office. Also, by king of Salem is meant the king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. And the blessed apostle writing to the Hebrews makes mention of Melchizedek as without father or mother and refers him to Christ and, through Christ, to the church of the Gentiles, for all the glory of the head is assigned to the members. . . . While he was uncircumcised, he blessed Abraham who had been circumcised; and in Abraham he blessed Levi; and through Levi he blessed Aaron from whom the priesthood afterwards descended. For this reason, he maintains, one should infer that the priesthood of the church, which is uncircumcised, blessed the priesthood of the synagogue, which is circumcised. And as to the Scripture which says, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, our mystery is foreshown in the word order; not at all, indeed, in the sacrifice of nonrational victims through Aaron’s agency, but when bread and wine, that is, the body and blood of the Lord Jesus, were offered in sacrifice.

God the Word was not generated from a woman; the one generated from a woman was the one fashioned in her by the power of the Holy Spirit. The one who is of one essence with the Father was not born from her womb, for he is without mother, as blessed Paul’s phrase has it. It was rather the one fashioned in his mother’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit who came in the last times. For this reason he is also called without father.

When Paul wished to show that Christ was a high priest after the order of Melchizedek,^[1] he speaks those things that pertain to him, not explaining his nature but putting forth the explanation about him found in the divine Scripture and demonstrating the similarity between Melchizedek and Christ from the Scripture.

Thus, he calls him fatherless and motherless, on the grounds that the divine Scripture does not narrate his genealogy. Then he adds, being without genealogy, showing that he is not talking about the nature of the man but rather the account of the divine Scripture. Then he further connects in the thought neither having a beginning of days nor an end of life—not in his nature but in the divine Scripture. And since it was possible to also say these about another person—for the divine Scripture does not remember to note the parents of many people or to set forth their genealogy, especially as many as we have learned were born outside the Israelite race—he does well to add, being likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever. For no longer does this apply to the rest as it does to him. And he makes clear from this explanation of the Scripture how Christ has this property as well as the rest. For Christ was without father in the begetting of his humanity, and without mother in the origin of his divine essence, and really without genealogy. For what genealogy would there be of him who exists from his Father alone? And it is also clear that he has neither beginning of days nor an end of life. In the case of Christ it is actually the case, whereas in the case of Melchizedek it is what we find (or do not find) in the Scripture’s account of him. Christ received his priesthood forever from the divine Scripture where it said, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,^[2] even as Melchizedek acts as priest eternally. And he calls him an eternal priest on the grounds that he has not passed on the priesthood to successors, which happened to be the case under Mosaic law. Therefore he also said, Having been likened to the Son of God, and yet it was appropriate to say that the Son had been made like Melchizedek—for the first is not made like the second. Yet the truth took place in connection with Christ, but no such thing took place beforehand with Melchizedek. So he says that Melchizedek was made like Christ by the way that he appears in the narrative, since the divine Scripture wished to show to us in its narration of the life of Melchizedek the similarity with the one who was to be.

He calls Melchizedek without genealogy because he was not from the seed of Abraham nor was he given a genealogy by Moses, but his race was Canaanite and he sprang from that cursed seed. He was pronounced righteous in regards to his deeds. Yet because he had not sprung from righteous forebears or from some righteous seed, it was not proper to give the genealogy of this man who inclined to the epitome of righteousness. Now Melchizedek demonstrates that he was of Canaanite origin and it also can be proved positively from those regions that he ruled and reigned over and the regions with which he was associated. For he was a neighbor of Sodom, and he was very close to Abraham when he lived near the oak of Mamre.^[1] And one must also reckon that he happens to be king of that Salem,^[2] which is Jerusalem.

Does God have a mother? A Greek without reproach introducing mothers for the gods! Is Paul then a liar when he says of the deity of Christ, without father or mother or genealogy? Mary, my friend, did not give birth to the Godhead, for what is born of flesh is flesh.^[1] A creature did not produce him who is uncreatable. The Father has not just recently generated God the Logos from the Virgin, for in the beginning was the Logos, as John says.^[2]

The text said of Melchizedek, of course, that he continues a priest forever since he did not transmit the priesthood to his children, like Aaron, Eleazar and Phineas; the one transmitting it to another as an heirloom seems somehow to be deprived of the position when someone else is performing it. It has another sense as well: just as we refer to Moses not just as the lawgiver but as the law itself, so too we use the name Melchizedek both of the person and the thing, namely, priesthood. Christ the Lord has it, enjoying eternal life.

Listen, you heretic, to the passage you have garbled: hear in full and completely, what you quoted mutilated and hacked about. The apostle wants to make clear to every one the twofold birth of God. In order to show how the Lord was born [both] in the Godhead and in flesh, he says, Without father, without mother. The one belongs to the birth of divinity, the other to that of the flesh. For, as he was begotten in his divine nature without mother, so he is in the body without father. Though he is neither without father nor without mother, we must believe in him without father and without mother. For, if you regard him as begotten of the Father, he is without mother. If you regard him as born of his mother, he is without father. And so in each of these births he has one [parent]: in both [births] together he is without each. For, the birth of divinity had no need of mother; and for the birth of his body, he was himself sufficient, without a father. Therefore says the apostle Without [father or] mother, without genealogy.

The old has passed away,

behold all things have been made anew.

The letter withdraws, the Spirit advances.

The shadows flee, the truth breaks in.

Melchizedek is summed up; the motherless becomes fatherless.

The first without a mother,

The second without a father,

The laws of nature are abrogated

that the cosmos above be brought to perfection. ON

Now consider, Paul says, how great this man is to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. Up to this point he has been applying the type; henceforward, he boldly shows Melchizedek to be more glorious than the Aaronic priesthood. But if he who bears a type of Christ is so much better not merely than the priests, but even than the forefather himself of the priests, what should one say of the reality? You see how superabundantly he shows the superiority. . . . Have you seen the superiority? Have you seen how great is the interval between Abraham and Melchizedek, who bears the type of our High Priest? And he shows that the superiority had been caused by authority, not necessity. For the one paid the tithe, which indicates the priest; the other gave the blessing, which indicates the superior. This superiority passes on also to the descendants.

This Melchizedek is Shem,^[1] who became a king due to his greatness; he was the head of fourteen nations. In addition, he was a priest. He received this from Noah, his father, through the rights of succession. Shem lived not only to the time of Abraham, as Scripture says, but even to the time of Jacob and Esau, the grandsons of Abraham. It was to him that Rebekah went to ask and was told, Two nations are in your womb, and the elder shall serve the younger.^[2] Rebekah would not have bypassed her husband, who had been delivered at the high place, or her father-in-law, to whom revelations of the divinity came continually, and gone straight to ask Melchizedek unless she had learned of his greatness from Abraham or Abraham’s son. Abraham would not have given him a tenth of everything unless he knew that Melchizedek was infinitely greater than himself. Would Rebekah have asked one of the Canaanites or one of the Sodomites? Would Abraham have given a tenth of his possessions to any one of these? One ought not even entertain such ideas.

Because the length of Melchizedek’s life extended to the time of Jacob and Esau, it has been stated, with much probability, that he was Shem. His father Noah was dwelling in the east, and Melchizedek was dwelling between two tribes, that is, between the sons of Ham and his own sons. Melchizedek was like a partition between the two, for he was afraid that the sons of Ham would turn his own sons to idolatry.

So far, then, we have learned that they who are called Christs in the highest sense of the term are anointed by God, not by people, and anointed with the Holy Spirit, not with a prepared unguent.

It is now time to see how the teaching of the Hebrews shows that the true Christ of God possesses a divine nature higher than humanity. Hear, therefore, David again, where he says that he knows an eternal priest of God and calls him his own Lord and confesses that he shares the throne of God Most High in the one hundred ninth psalm.^[1] . . . And note that David in this passage, being king of the whole Hebrew race and, in addition to his kingdom, adorned with the Holy Spirit, recognized that the being of whom he speaks, who was revealed to him in the Spirit, was so great and surpassingly glorious, that he called him his own Lord. He said, The Lord said to my Lord, for he knows him as eternal high priest, priest of the Most High God, and throned beside almighty God and his offspring. Now it was impossible for Jewish priests to be consecrated to the service of God without anointing, which is why it was usual to call them Christs. The Christ, then, mentioned in the psalm will also be a priest, for how could he have been witnessed to as priest unless he had previously been anointed? It is also said that he is made a priest forever. Now this would transcend human nature, for it is not in humanity to last forever, since our race is mortal and frail. Therefore, the priest of God described in this passage, who by the confirmation of an oath received a perpetual and limitless priesthood from God, was greater than human. For the Lord has sworn, he said, and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest after the order of Melchizedek.’ . . . The object of the psalmist’s prophecy, therefore, is presented distinctly as an eternal priest and Son of the Most High God, begotten by the Most High God and sharing the throne of his kingdom. . . .

Thus I think I have clearly proved that the essential Christ was not man, but Son of God, honored with a seat on the right hand of his Father’s Godhead, far greater not only than human and mortal nature, but greater also than every spiritual existence among things begotten.

Through Abraham, who gave him the tenth part, the house of Levi, which had to be generated by him, took the tenth part in him. The Levites, even though they took the tenth part, did not take it from strangers but received the tenth part from themselves; in fact, they took the tenth part from their brothers, the sons of Abraham. Therefore, Abraham, to whom the promise of priesthood was made, gave the tenth part to Melchizedek, who was not inscribed in the Levitic generation. And to Abraham it had been promised that all nations would have been blessed in him. So why did he need the blessing of an uncircumcised man?^[1] Does not this show and prove that, if Abraham had not been inferior to Melchizedek, he would not have demanded to be blessed by him? And so the mortal sons receive the tenth part, and in the same manner Melch-izedek, who was mortal, lived at that time to be a witness for Abraham, for the indisputably true Melchizedek’s blessing destined to the seed of Abraham.

He says, even though they have come out of the loins of Abraham.^[1] Although the Levites are in all other respects equal in rank with the other tribes, nonetheless because the other tribes give tithes while the Levites receive them, the Levites are clearly superior. But if this is the case, then clearly also the same principle applies to Abraham and Melchizedek, the giver and recipient, respectively.^[2] Consequently, the type of Christ [Melchizedek] is greater than the patriarch Abraham. But if he is greater than Abraham, he is much greater than the priests. And if the type is greater than Abraham, what would anyone say concerning Christ himself?

He says, that because Abraham paid tithes, also Levi who receives tithes himself was made to tithe, that is, he gave a tithe. We must underscore the phrase through Abraham, so that the meaning does not suffer violence. For because Abraham was made to tithe, in a certain sense also Levi, being still in his loins has been made to tithe.

Why is it that Scripture reports, for the sake of the tremendous difference between the priesthood of Christ and that of Levi, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of Abraham, since Christ was also there, and so both Levi and Christ paid the tithe? Unless it is because we should understand that, in some other way, Christ was not there? But who would deny that Christ was there according to the flesh? Then he was not there according to the soul, for the soul of Christ did not originate through the transmission of the sin of Adam, or else he would have been there. . . .

Levi was surely there in the loins of Abraham in accordance with the transmission of human seed by which he would enter into his mother; Christ was not there through that cause, although the flesh of Mary was. Thus, neither Levi nor Christ were present there according to the soul, but both of them were there according to the flesh. Levi was there according to fleshly desire, while Christ was there only according to his physical substance. For in a seed, there is both a visible physicality and an invisible principle. Both ran their course from Abraham, even from Adam himself, all the way to the body of Mary, since that too was conceived and born in the normal way. So Christ assumed the physical substance of flesh from the flesh of the virgin, but the reason for his conception did not come from a man’s seed, but from a much different source—from above. So for this reason, the flesh which he assumed from his mother was also present in the loins of Abraham.

So Levi paid a tithe in Abraham, who, although he was only there according to the flesh, was still there in the loins of Abraham, as Abraham also was once in the loins of his own father. In other words, he was born of his father Abraham in the same way that Abraham was born of his own father, namely through the law at work in his members fighting against the law of his mind^[1] and an invisible concupiscence, though the chaste and noble rights of marriage do not permit it to grow strong except insofar as these things are able to make provision for the continuation of the human race.

But he who acquired his flesh not as a rotting wound, but as the source of healing, did not himself also pay a tithe in that way. Since the paying of the tithe served to prefigure the source of healing, the one who would be cured paid the tithe in the flesh of Abraham, but not the one from whom healing would come. For the same flesh, not only that of Abraham, but also that of the first man taken from the earth, contained in itself at the same time both the wound caused by transgression and the medicine for that wound. The wound of sin was at work in the law of the fleshly members fighting against the law of the mind; this law was being transcribed upon all flesh begotten by the principle of a human seed. But the medicine for the wound was also in that flesh, which was assumed without any deed of concupiscence, assumed only in the physical material of the flesh from the Virgin through a divine principle of conception and formation for the sake of a participation in our death not due to his own iniquity and as an example of resurrection that is not deceptive. . . .

The soul of Christ is from the original soul only if it has not contracted the stain of sin; but if it could not be from that source without the guilt of sin, it has not come from that soul.

We now advance in reply to those who argue that one who is born of a baptized man ought himself to be regarded as already baptized. For why, they ask, could he not have been baptized in the loins of his father, when, according to the epistle to the Hebrews, Levi was able to pay tithes in the loins of Abraham? They who propose this argument ought to observe that it was not because he had paid tithes already in the loins of Abraham that Levi did not subsequently pay tithes, but because he was ordained to the office of the priesthood in order to receive tithes, not pay them. Otherwise, neither would his brethren, who all contributed their tithes to him, have been tithed—because they too, while in the loins of Abraham, had already paid tithes to Melchizedek.

When I compare the impoverishment of my insufficiency with the greatness of the gift I have received,^[1] I too should cry out in those words of the prophet, Lord, I have heard your word and was afraid; I have considered your works and trembled.^[2] What indeed could instill as much anxiety and fear as labor for the frail, elevation for the lowly, dignity for the undeserving? Yet we do not despair or give up, since we do not depend on ourselves but on the one who works in us.^[3] . . . So we have chanted with one voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not for our own exaltation but for the glory of Christ the Lord.

He it is of whom it was said in prophetic manner, You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek, that is to say, not according to the order of Aaron, whose priesthood passed down through the descent of his offspring and was a temporary ministry that ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedek, in whom the office of eternal high priest was prefigured. Since there is no mention of the parents he came from, he must be understood as standing for the one whose genealogy cannot be told.^[4]

Finally, since the mystery of this divine priesthood also extends to its implementation by people, it does not pass down through the course of generations. It is not what flesh and blood have created that is chosen. Rather, the privileges of paternity give way, and the social positions of families are disregarded, as the church accepts for its rulers those whom the Holy Spirit has prepared. Among the people of God’s adoption, which is priestly and kingly when taken as a whole, the prerogative of earthly lineage does not obtain the anointing.

If the priesthood according to the law contained perfection, he is saying, on the grounds that through it everything according to the law was fulfilled, why is the giving of another one intended? Why on earth is the promise made to give it not according to the order of Aaron but according to the order of Melchizedek? Actually, all the law’s requirements were fulfilled in the former one: it offered sacrifices, it gave purification from defilement, through it the commandments about festivals were fulfilled, the text says, for under it the people received the law.

After thus demonstrating the change of priesthood, he shows also the cessation of the law. The law was liked to the priesthood; so with priesthood coming to an end, the law also suffered the same fate.

The mystery of the divine plan is worthy of admiration: as Christ the Lord, eternal king as he is, was styled our high priest, so the tribe of Judah, which was formerly kingly, attained the priesthood through the Lord.

Orth.—[C]all to mind the words used of Melchizedek in the epistle to the Hebrews. Eran.^[1]—What words? Orth.—Those in which the divine apostle, in comparing the levitical priesthood with that of the Christ, likens Melchizedek in other respects to the Lord Christ and says that the Lord had the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Eran.—I think the words of the divine apostle are as follows—For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is king of peace; without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; remains a priest continually.^[2] I presume you spoke of this passage.

Orth.—Yes, I spoke of this; and I must praise you for not mutilating it but for quoting the whole. Tell me now, does each one of these points fit Melchizedek in nature and reality? Eran.—Who has the audacity to deny a fitness where the divine apostle has asserted it? Orth.—Then you say that all this fits Melchizedek by nature? Eran.—Yes. Orth.—Do you say that he was a man, or assumed some other nature? Eran.—A man. Orth.—Begotten or unbegotten? Eran.—You are asking very absurd questions. Orth.—The fault lies with you for openly opposing the truth. Answer then. Eran.—There is one only unbegotten, who is God and Father. Orth.—Then we assert that Melchizedek was begotten? Eran.—Yes. Orth.—But the passage about him teaches the opposite. Remember the words which you quoted a moment ago, Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. How then do the words Without father and without mother fit him; and how the statement that he neither received beginning of existence nor end, since all this transcends humanity?

Eran.—These things do in fact overstep the limits of human nature. Orth.—Then shall we say that the apostle told lies? Eran.—God forbid. Orth.—How then is it possible both to testify to the truth of the apostle and apply the supernatural to Melchizedek? Eran.—The passage is a very difficult one and requires much explanation. Orth.—For any one willing to consider it with attention it will not be hard to attain perception of the meaning of the words. After saying without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, the divine apostle adds made like unto the Son of God, he abides as a priest continually. Here he plainly teaches us that the Lord Christ is archetype of Melchizedek in things concerning the human nature. And he speaks of Melchizedek as made like unto the Son of God. Orth.—Now let us examine the point in this manner. Do you say that the Lord had a father according to the flesh? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—Why? Eran.—He was born of the holy Virgin alone. Orth.—He is therefore properly styled without father? Eran.—True.

Orth.—Do you say that according to the divine nature [the Lord] had a mother? Eran.—Certainly not. Orth.—For he was begotten of the Father alone before the ages? Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—And yet, as the generation he has of the Father is ineffable, he is spoken of as without descent. Who, says the prophet, shall declare his generation?^[1] Eran.—You are right. Orth.—Thus it becomes him to have neither beginning of days nor end of life; for he is without beginning, indestructible, and, in a word, eternal, and coeternal with the Father.

Eran.—This is my view too. But we must now consider how this fits the admirable Melchizedek. Orth.—As an image and type. The image, as we have just observed, has not all the properties of the archetype. Thus to the Savior these qualities are proper both by nature and in reality; but the story of the origin of the race has attributed them to Melchizedek. For after telling us of the father of the patriarch Abraham, and of the father and mother of Isaac, and similarly of Jacob and of his sons, and exhibiting the pedigree of our first forefathers, it records neither the father nor the mother of Melchizedek. It also does not teach that he traced his descent from any one of Noah’s sons, to the end that he may be a type of him who is in reality without father and without mother. And this is what the divine apostle would have us understand, for in this very passage he says further, But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.^[2]

Eran.—Then, since holy Scripture has not mentioned his parents, can he be called without father and without mother? Orth.—If he had really been without father and without mother, he would not have been an image, but a reality. But since these are his qualities not by nature, but according to the dispensation of the divine Scripture, he exhibits the type of the reality. Eran.—The type must have the character of the archetype.

Orth.—Is man called an image of God? Eran.—Man is not an image of God but was made in the image of God.^[3] Orth.—Listen then to the apostle. He says, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.^[4] Eran.—Granted, then, that he is an image of God.

Orth.—According to your argument then he must have plainly preserved the characters of the archetype, and he must have been uncreated, uncompounded and infinite. He ought also to have been able to create out of the nonexistent, he ought to have fashioned all things by his word and without labor. In addition to this, he ought to have been free from sickness, sorrow, anger and sin, to have been immortal and incorruptible and to possess all the qualities of the archetype. Eran.—Man is not an image of God in every respect. Orth.—Although he is truly an image in the qualities in which you would grant him to be so, you will find that he is separated by a wide interval from the reality. Eran.—Agreed.

Orth.—Consider now too this point. The divine apostle calls the Son the image of the Father; for he says, Who is the image of the invisible God?^[5] Eran.—What then; does not the Son have all the qualities of the Father? Orth.—He is not Father. He is not uncaused. He is not unbegotten. Eran.—If he were he would not be Son. Orth.—Then does not what I said hold true; the image does not have all the qualities of the archetype? Eran.—True. Orth.—Thus too the divine apostle said that Melchizedek is made like unto the Son of God.

Eran.—Suppose we grant that [Melchizedek] is without Father and without mother and without descent, as you have said. But how are we to understand his having neither beginning of days nor end of life?

Orth.—The holy Moses when writing the ancient genealogy tells us how Adam being so many years old begat Seth,^[1] and when he had lived so many years he ended his life.^[2] He writes the same of Seth, of Enoch, and of the rest. But he mentions neither beginning of existence nor end of life when speaking about Melchizedek. Thus as far as the story goes he has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but in truth and reality the only begotten Son of God never began to exist and shall never have an end. Eran.—Agreed. Orth.—Then, so far as what belongs to God and is really divine is concerned, Melchizedek is a type of the Lord Christ; but as far as the priesthood is concerned, which belongs rather to man than to God, the Lord Christ was made a priest after the order of Melchizedek.^[3] For, Melchizedek was a high priest of the people, and the Lord Christ has made the right holy offering of salvation for everyone.

Eran.—We have spent many words on this matter. Orth.—Yet more were needed, as you know, for you said the point was a difficult one.

Paul says, If perfection had been attainable through the Levitic house, for under it the people received the law—that is, through its agency the law of the people was declared—what further need would there have been to elevate another priest from another place, rather than one named after the order of Aaron, who was the patriarch of those priests, but after the order of the uncircumcised Melchizedek?

After thus proving the necessity to change priesthood, Paul begins again to prove that, with this change in the priesthood, the law is changed too. When there is a change in the priesthood, he says, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. Is there need of a sacrificial law, if sacrifices and priesthood have been abolished?

So Melchizedek, of whom these things are spoken even though he was from that generation, came from another tribe from which no one has ever served at the altar, and the one who received his priesthood was certainly not from the Levites, lest he might be estranged from Melchizedek because of his origin.

In fact, it is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

For this reason Uzziah was stricken with leprosy,^[1] because he wanted to transfer priesthood by his action and move it to the house of Judah, before Jesus, who was from Judah, came and took it in his hour.

This becomes even more evident because another priest arises in the likeness of Melchi-zedek, who has become a priest not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, that is, not by being appointed before the people through the aspersion, sanctification, and blood and anointment of priesthood, and through its garments. Our Lord, on the contrary, was appointed and accepted the priesthood by the power of a life which is not broken down by death.

He accepted the priesthood through the oath proffered by David, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore, a former commandment is set aside, as well as the previous priesthood, because of its weakness and uselessness as a rule.

He is saying it is possible to bring out the likeness between the one and the other: as one did not have successors to his priesthood, so neither did the other transmit it to another—which he referred to as bodily descent because the law required on account of the mortality of human beings that after the death of the high priest his son would succeed to the priesthood. Now, in my view this phrase^[1] has another meaning as well: the priests cleansed the body in particular, sprinkling and washing it; they offered sacrifices for it. In other words, it was not for murderers or wreckers of others’ marriages that they were in the habit of performing sacrifices, but for menstruating women, lepers and people who touched the bones of the dead.

Just as the people of old, who were called the people of God,^[1] were divided into twelve tribes plus the levitical order, and this order itself, which engaged in service of the Divine, was divided into additional priestly and levitical orders, so, I think, all the people of Christ according to the hidden person of the heart,^[2] who bear the name Jew inwardly and who have been circumcised in spirit, possess the characteristics of the tribes in a more mystical manner. . . .

Most of us who approach the teachings of Christ, since we have much time for the activities of life and offer a few acts to God, would perhaps be those from the tribes who have a little fellowship with the priests and support the service of God in a few things. But those who devote themselves to the divine Word and truly exist by the service of God alone will properly be said to be Levites and priests in accordance with the excellence of their activities in this work.

And, perhaps, those who excel all others and who hold, as it were, the first places of their generation will be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but not according to the order of Melchizedek. If someone should object to this, thinking that we are impious when we prescribe the title of high priest for humans, since Jesus is proclaimed as great priest in many places—for we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God^[3]—we would have to say to him that the apostle indicated this when he said that the prophet said of Christ, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron. On this basis, we too say that humans can be high priests according to the order of Aaron, but only the Christ of God according to the order of Melchizedek.

It is better to be in doubt about hidden matters than to quarrel about what is uncertain. Let us turn to what is true and firm, to what most assuredly keeps any Christian and good Catholic from doubting or quibbling. That is, through the sacrament, bread and wine offered to God become for us the true body and blood of Christ, according to the words of the Lord himself and the sacred Scriptures composed by the Holy Spirit. This sacrament the Catholic church offers daily on its altar after the order of Melchizedek by the true pontiff, Jesus Christ, with mystical understanding and an ineffable dearth of speech, because surpassing grace goes beyond everything.

And in the Apocalypse, John the apostle . . . says, Who loved us and washed from us our sins in his blood.^[1] Not only did he wash away our sins in his blood when he gave his blood for us on the cross, or when each of us was cleansed in his baptism by the mystery of his most sacred passion. But he also takes away every day the sins of the world and washes us of our daily sins in his blood, when the memory of his blessed passion is reenacted on the altar, when a created thing, bread and wine, is transformed by the ineffable sanctification of the Spirit into the sacrament of his flesh and blood. Thus his body and blood is not poured forth and slain by the hands of the unfaithful to their own ruin, but he is taken by the mouth of the faithful to their salvation.

The lamb in the law of Passover rightly shows us a type of him, since, having once liberated the people from their Egyptian servitude, it sanctified the people every year by being immolated in memory of their liberation, until he came, to whom such a sacrificial offering gave testimony. When he was offered to the Father for us as a sacrificial offering and for a sweet savor, he transformed, by the lamb that was offered, the mystery of his passion into a created thing, bread and wine, having been made a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Because of their earthly voluptuousness and desire for pleasure, which the former priests showed, and because of their infirmity, through which they made their people infirm before their cupidities, they did not bring any of them to that perfection, thanks to which we got rid of all our material goods. In fact, the introduction of the gospel made for the hope which surpassed what was previously preached to us, was also made for the introduction of this precept: through our own freedom from material possessions we approach God, whereas through the voluptuousness and pleasures of the law we were rejected and removed from God.

Was the law then of no use? It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans perfect it was of no use. For in this respect he says, the law made nothing perfect. All were figures, all shadows: circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath. Therefore they could not reach through the soul, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw. But a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

The law ceases to have effect, he is saying, and the hope of better things is introduced. It ceases to have effect, not for being evil (the frenzied view of the heretics), but for being ineffective and incapable of providing the perfect benefit. It must be noted, of course, that he refers to the obsolete prescriptions of the law as ineffective and useless—circumcision, sabbath observance and similar things; the New Testament also bids us observe to a greater extent the commandments, you shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, and suchlike things. In place of the former, therefore, we receive the hope of the good things to come: it relates us to God.

We may also ask what it means when it says in the law that Moses’ face was shining with glory, though covered with a veil,^[1] while his hand when put into his bosom became leprous as snow.^[2] In this it seems to me the form of the whole law is quite fully described. For his face is the word of the law, and by hand are described the works of the law. For no human being will be justified by works of the law.^[3] Nor could the law lead anyone to perfection. In the same way the leprous hand of Moses was hidden in his bosom, since it could not perform any perfect work; but his face shone, though covered with a veil, since his word has the glory of knowledge, but a hidden glory.

Since he was the one who under the law appointed priests but brought them to an end and declared another in their place, he was obliged to say that he appointed them without taking an oath, but in his case included an oath as well. Do not think, then, that this priesthood will cease to have effect like that one, or that another one will take its place; the taking of an oath excludes such a false impression.

Since the New Covenant promised us the kingdom of heaven, resurrection from the dead and life everlasting, though none of these is in sight, he had to call the Lord Jesus its surety, who through his own resurrection confirmed the hope of our resurrection, on the one hand, and on the other continued to give his own resurrection through the miracles worked by the apostles.

He says that it shows the difference between Christ and Aaron in that Christ received the priesthood with an oath. For those who became priests without oaths became so because of their need to cease being priests at some time, but Christ entered the priesthood with oaths, since he intended to remain based on his rank. He shows his rank is far greater than those under the law, since he intended also to furnish a greater high priest to those coming to him. For in this way he says he becomes a surety . . . for being the first to rise, just as he also calls him a high priest, so he pledges to us a similar resurrection.

Jesus now stands before the face of God interceding for us.^[1] He stands before the altar to offer a propitiation to God for us. As he was about to approach that altar, moreover, he was saying, I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until I drink it anew with you.^[2] Therefore, he expects us to be converted, to imitate his example, to follow his footsteps, that he may rejoice with us and drink wine with us in his Father’s kingdom. For now, because the Lord is merciful and gracious,^[3] he weeps with those who weep and desires to rejoice with those who rejoice^[4] with greater feeling than this apostle. And how much more this one mourns over many of those who sinned before and have not repented.^[5] For we must not think that Paul is mourning for sinners and weeping for those who transgress, but Jesus my Lord abstains from weeping when he approaches the Father, when he stands at the altar and offers a propitiatory sacrifice for us. This is not to drink the wine of joy when he ascends to the altar because he is still bearing the bitterness of our sins. He, therefore, does not want to be the only one to drink wine in the kingdom of God. He waits for us, just as he said, Until I shall drink it with you.^[6] Thus we are those who, neglecting our life, delay his joy.

Petition does not imply here, as it does in popular parlance, a desire for legal satisfaction; there is something humiliating in the idea. No, it means interceding for us in his role of mediator, in the way that the Spirit too is spoken of as making petition on our behalf.^[1] For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.^[2] Even at this moment he is, as human, interceding for my salvation, until he makes me divine by the power of his incarnate humanity. As human, I say, because he still has with him the body he assumed, though he is no longer regarded as human,^[3] meaning the bodily experiences, which, sin aside, are ours and his. This is the advocate^[4] we have in Jesus—not a slave who falls prostrate before the Father on our behalf. Get rid of what is really a slavish suspicion, unworthy of the Spirit. It is not in God to make the demand, nor in the Son to submit to it; the thought is unjust to God. No, it is by what he suffered as man that he persuades us, as Word and encourager, to endure. That, for me, is the meaning of his advocacy.

You see that he says this in respect of that which is according to the flesh. For when he appears as priest, then he also intercedes. Wherefore also, when Paul says, who indeed intercedes for us,^[1] he hints the same thing; the high priest makes intercession. For he that raises the dead and gives them life^[2] and does so as the Father, how is it that, when there is need to save, he makes intercession? He that has all judgment,^[3] how is it that he makes intercession? He that sends his angels^[4] that they may throw some into the furnace and save others, how is it that he makes intercession? Wherefore, he says, he is able to save. For this cause then he saves, because he dies not. Inasmuch as he always lives, he has, he means, no successor; and if he has no successor, he is able to aid all people. For there under the law indeed, the high priest, although he were worthy of admiration during the time in which he was high priest as Samuel, for instance, and any other such, but, after this, no longer; for they were dead. But here it is not so, but he saves to the uttermost. What is to the uttermost? He hints at some mystery. Not here only, he says, but there also he saves them that draw near to God through him. How does he save? Since he always lives, he says, to make intercession for them. Do you see the humiliation? Do you see the manhood? For he says not that he obtained this by making intercession once for all, but continually and whenever it may be needful to intercede for them. To the uttermost. What is it? Not for a time only, but there also in the future life.

He intercedes as we have him as an advocate with the Father.^[1] He says that from his incarnation itself he advocates for us and exhorts the Father to have mercy on us.

You see that the whole passage is said of the humanity. But when I say the humanity, I mean the humanity having divinity, not dividing one from the other, but leaving you to suppose what is suitable. . . . He says, such a high priest also became us, who is holy, blameless. Blameless—what is that? Without wickedness, about which another prophet says, there was no deceit in his mouth.^[1] That is, he is not crafty. Could any one say this concerning God? And is one not ashamed to say that God is not crafty, nor deceitful? Concerning him, however, in respect of the flesh, it might be reasonable to say it.

Although we are not his brothers but have become his enemies by our transgressions, he who is not mere man, but God, after the freedom that he bestowed on us, also calls us his brothers. I will tell of your name, he says, to my brethren.^[1] Now, he who has redeemed us, if you examine his nature, is neither brother nor man; but if you examine his condescension to us through grace, he calls us brothers and descends to our human nature. He does not need a ransom, for he himself is the propitiation.

Who then is so just and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need of a sacrifice for the washing away of his own sins, neither original sins nor those that are added from human life? And what could be so fittingly chosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so suitable for this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansing the vices of mortals as the flesh born in the womb without the contagion of carnal concupiscence, and coming from a virginal womb? And what could be so acceptably offered and received as the flesh of our sacrifice made the body of our priest? Four things are to be considered in every sacrifice: by whom it is offered, to whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered.

In the house of Levi, because they became priests without an oath, they did not last; he, on the contrary, lasts forever. In fact, it cannot happen that he speaks falsely about the oath, because he said, The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever’ of the priests according to the order of Melchizedek. And Jesus Christ was a much better mediator than the former priests in that thing, which he promised us through the New Testament.

While before it was necessary that the priests were many, because death interrupted the older ones in the course of their office and they did not last forever, now there is no other high priest with our Lord, who lives forever to make intercession for us, not in the victims of the sacrifices but in prayers.

And he is able for all time to save us, not in the earthly delights, which nourish us for a few days, but when we draw near to God through him in eternity.

It was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners . . . who had no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself, not for him but for the sins of humankind.

The law appointed weak men as high priests who certainly needed to offer sacrifices for their sins. The word of the oath, however, which was provided in David later than the law, appointed the Son who remains perfect forever.